OK, still don't have much. Although I've been following politics very closely over the last couple weeks (I fell a little behind on my issues of The Economist but have caught up by reading 3 issues in the last 3 days). However, on the discussion side I've honestly been a little politic'd out. I think it's because I know that with the DNC convention coming at the end of the month and then the RNC one right after it's going to really move the campaigning into high gear and that's likely all we'll hear about for the two months after that till election day. Still, I do have a couple thoughts . . .
First, yesterday in the first Guantanamo war crimes trial the driver for Osama Bin Laden was given what most consider to be a pretty light sentence: 5 and a half years. Since he's already served 5 of those years, that means he is eligible to be released in 6 months. I actually have no interest in discussing whether or not his sentence was fair (because I know what that will quickly devolve into). However, this is the line from the story that really got to me: "U.S. authorities insist they could hold him indefinitely without charge as an 'enemy combatant'." So, that means that someone can be convicted of a crime, sentenced, serve their sentence, and then still not be released? If that's the case, then the trial is nothing but a farce and brings us one step closer to the type of governing you see in places like Zimbabwe, where the incumbent loses an election but still gets to stay in power. Now, the story does go on to say that "defense lawyers and human rights groups say the military will face pressure to release him at the end of his sentence", but the fact that it's even an option that he won't be is apalling. Again, as we should be asking with almost everything we do now, how do you think this appears to the rest of the world?
Next, while catching up on the afore-mentioned Economists I was reading one of their special reports on emerging technologies in energy. In particular, while reading an article on the re-emergence of nuclear reactors I was struck by the latest perversion of language being thrust upon us. As is common knowledge, all nuclear reactors have within them safety mechanisms that are automatically triggered without human intervention if certain conditions exist. These used to be referred to as "fail-safes". However, apparently we can't have any derivation of the word "failure" anywhere near a discussion about nuclear power; so now they're called "passive safety" mechanisms. This got me onto a line of thinking about all sorts of semantic changes we have to endure so that expressions that describe exactly what something is are replaced or softened because they are unpallatable for some reason. Speaking of failure, a few years ago a British Teacher's Union debated removing "failure" from all situations in school and replacing it instead with deferred success. Thankfully, that was voted down, but now we are treated to debates that aren't much less ridiculous. After Al-Maliki has started to come around on the idea of setting some goals for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, we now get to hear that the Bush administration, while still against "timetables" for withdrawal, are ok with having time horizons. The fact that we will really have to listen to our prospective future Presidents seriously debate the difference between the two makes me want to weep. My favorite quote about this was from The Daily Show the other night ("Isn't a horizon something that you keeping moving toward but never reach?"). George Carlin was someone who was greatly annoyed by euphemisms, and has a lot of classic bits about just this type of language softening. One of the best is on what we've done to the term describing when someone in combat has their nervous system stressed to beyond the breaking point. It used to be called shell shock in WWI; then it became battle fatigue in WWII; then Operational Exhaustion in Korea; and then finally we arrived at Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Vietnam. As he was so great at doing, he takes a somewhat goofy premise and lets us know why we should care about it: "I bet you if we'd still been calling it shell shock, some of those Vietnam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Found something cool today about the oil issue:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27910#continueA
It seems that Nancy Pelosi might be accidentally helping John McCain get what he wants.
BTW, Obama's an idiot if he doesn't know what "Drill here" means. Snarky BS is just what this country doesn't need when it comes to people's fiscal well being.
I love this exchange from one of my favorite movies:
"...It sounds good and all, but I have to confront the fact that I really don't like the people I've been talking about helping out."
Misanthrope :-)
Wow, Mike, that article was a giant piece of crap.
First off, I almost stopped reading after the first three words: "Anti-energy groups..." What a ridiculous, inflammatory, and slanted statement to make in the first sentence.
But out of respect for you, I kept reading. And I hit this...
"By simply doing nothing, these bans will expire, and these taxpayer-owned resources will become available to add jobs, energy and national security for our nation."
Huh? While I understand that a decreased dependence on foreign oil might let us bring some overseas troops home, in no way would increased domestic oil production "add national security for our nation." The biggest (but not only) beef that the Islamic extremists have with the US is that we have troops in Saudi Arabia which is home to some of their holiest places. In NO WAY would this increase in domestic production chain react in a way that would cause us to abandon our military presence in Saudi Arabia.
I also like when the author suggests that exploring for oil will immediately benefit the American people and then goes on to point out that:
"That’s how America finally found Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, after decades of fruitless search."
So we need to lease these lands for exploration, but unless we get lucky, don't plan on any discoveries for a while. DECADES!
Anyways, that all being said, I actually agree with the core point of the piece, it was just written in such an idiotic way that it made me want to beat my head with a hammer.
For John, while reading your thing on wordplay, I was giggling to myself thinking of that same Carlin bit about Shell Shock and PTSD. I also think it is funny that it has been acronymed so we can refer to it with ZERO negative connotation. I was also thinking about a line from the West Wing where the press secretary had a memo from the State Department that they wanted to change "Rogue Nation" to "States of Concern." The Chief of Staff asked "Is there any reason I care?" and the Press Secretary responded "It will make me feel stupid."
All this and not a single mention of the Paris Hilton ad. Which I honestly thought was hilarious and brilliant (and even kinda non-partisan.)
Since the U.S. is now purchasing 70% of our oil from overseas, what is being referred to in "increased national security" is that we're not depending on a possible enemy to supply oil to our military.
Hey, unrelated, but I was looking at your book and movie reviews in the sidebar. Definitely agree with you about Animal Farm.... now why couldn't we have read *that* in high school instead of The Brothers Karamazov? And I just saw The Dark Night today at the Navy Pier IMAX. Wow. THAT was a freaking good movie. Like.... whoever else here has seen it, let's get some beers in us and discuss for like, an hour.
$440 million dollars, there is a good chance that the 4 regular visitors to this blog have seen Batman.
And for a movie to avoid: Brideshead Revisited. Wow. For me, nothing worked in this movie except one or two of the performances. And when the credits rolled I looked at my watch and was SHOCKED to find out that I had only been in the theater for 2 hours and not 4.
Period pieces typically are all-or-nothing: they're either excellent or excruciating. One of the few exceptions to that for me was Atonement. That was a movie that after I was done I said "wow that's a really really good that I really really didn't like at all."
Funny though, everytime I see the title "Brideshead Revisited" I instantly think of "Bride of Reanimator." They are, uh, slightly different films.
Um, yeah, slightly.
And since Ron Suskind was on the Daily Show last night, is his book required reading for you?
Well unfortunately since I started War and Peace I am adding a lot more to my list of books to read then I am crossing off. And I have institutaed the self-discipline on myself that I won't even read any books until I get through the current week's issue of The Economist, so the list is likely to continue to grow for quite some time.
In all honesty, I probably won't read it. There's just too many others I want to read first that I doubt I'll get to it. I was really surprised, though, that there was nothing in The Economist on it or anything on either This Week or Meet the Press. I guess George Bush corruption charges are sooooo 2004.
I don't know if anyone watches The Colbert Report, but check out the bit he did on offshore drilling yesterday. Simplified to be sure, but hilarious.
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/index
What, no hyperlink? Sheesh. So much work you make me do.
So, is political debate on the merits of the major candidates off the table?
Off the table? No, of course not. But debating with 'anonymous' is simply not interesting for me. Show me the man behind the curtain.
Post a Comment